Re: [lmap] Merged framework draft

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

I also think this memo is worthy of "initial wg I-D".

And, same as many WG participants I'm sure, 
there's a bit of text I'd like to tweak 
(especially lines I contributed).

Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> [e-mail]
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 7:04 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [lmap] Merged framework draft
> 
> Also for myself. Fairly comprehensive and captures all of the major points
> that have been discussed/agreed so far.
> 
> Trevor.
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> >marcelo bagnulo braun
> >Sent: 23 September 2013 10:21
> >To: [e-mail]
> >Subject: Re: [lmap] Merged framework draft
> >
> >agree
> >
> >El 23/09/13 11:04, [e-mail] escribió:
> >>
> >> Personally I think it is
> >>
> >> *From:*Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> *Sent:* 23 September 2013 09:56
> >> *To:* Eardley,PL,Philip,TUB8 R; [e-mail]
> >> *Subject:* RE: Merged framework draft
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Thanks to Philip and all the authors for the good work.
> >>
> >> We need however to be a little more aggressive. The WG charter
> >> includes the following milestone.
> >>
> >> Sep 2013
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Initial WG I-D for the LMAP Framework including terminology
> >>
> >> According to the authors - is this I-D in good enough shape for
> >> becoming the initial WG I-D? If the authors say 'yes' the chairs can
> >> ask on the WG list about consensus on this issue.
> >>
> >> We have a similar milestone for the Use Cases document.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >> *From:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >> [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *[e-mail]
> >> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >> *Sent:* Monday, September 23, 2013 11:47 AM
> >> *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >> *Subject:* [lmap] Merged framework draft
> >>
> >> We have been working on a framework draft that merges the previous 2
> >> framework drafts & the terminology draft, as well as including various
> >> things that have been discussed on the list since.
> >>
> >> Our plan is to produce an update before the Vancouver deadline. We
> >> have a few things that we're planning to work on, but we wanted to get
> >> it out in order to get everyone else's comments.
> >>
> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-folks-lmap-framework-00.txt
> >>
> >> Terminology:
> >>
> >> Information Model definition tweaked, new definition for Subscriber
> >> and Test Traffic.
> >>
> >> Protocol Model:
> >>
> >> Added a high-level protocol model
> >>
> >> Privacy considerations:
> >>
> >> A substantial new section. It may be better removing it and security
> >> considerations into a new draft about threats and how to alleviate
> them?
> >>
> >> Looking forward to the discussions!
> >>
> >> Phil, Al, Paul, Marcelo, Aamer, Trevor.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> lmap mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >lmap mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap